Read Part 1 Read Part 3
There’s an odd schizophrenia in Dershowitz’s broadside on Carter at Gather.com. On the one hand, he is absolutely brutal in attacking Carter, calling him some horrible things and
making some very serious implications. On the other, he fondly reminisces about
supporting Carter for president and mentions more than once Carter’s admirable work in so many human rights and social aid and justice arenas.
But Dershowitz pulls no punches in building his “case” that Carter wrote his book because he is on the payroll of wealthy Arabs.
Dershowitz documents very little of his claims. Where he does, he primarily draws from two articles. One comes from the notorious right-wing web site, FrontpageMag.com, set up by David Horowitz. This site has a well-known reputation for half-truths and outright falsehoods, to which I and many of my colleagues can personally testify (for instance, they described me as “a former 60’s Berkeley radical”. I was three years old when the 60s ended, and didn’t set foot in Berkeley until late 1985. The lies about both myself and JVP only begin there, and they get much more vicious as the article continues).
The other citation is from another notorious right-wing source, albeit one with a somewhat better reputation, the Washington Times. But there is precious little direct sourcing in either of these articles either (none at all in the FrontpageMag one). Dershowitz would never consider entering a courtroom with “evidence” like this.
For most of us, the stories of big money deals glaze our eyes, and the claim of massive Arab funders is what comes through loud and clear. But it’s important to examine Dershowitz’s allegations, so let’s do so, briefly.
Carter and his associates in the 1970s were swept up in a major scandal around the Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI), a Pakistani bank that went global and was a center of major controversy. Carter’s advisor and close associate Burt Lance was particularly involved. And from this, in part, Dershowitz draws his allegation of Carter’s support of terrorism, as BCCI was indeed involved in funding terrorism. And one of the leading figures involved in that aspect of the story was none other than Marc Rich.
Rich was a major international commodities trader who was indicted for tax evasion and for trading illegally with Iran during the hostage crisis. He was pardoned by Bill Clinton under a storm of controversy, which included an appeal from Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak for Clinton to issue the pardon, as Rich had been a strong supporter of Israel. An affidavit had Rich accompanying the key figure in the BCCI terrorism scandal, Samir Najmeddin, on every trip he took to the bank. Najmeddin was alleged to have been the person who funneled money through BCCI to purchase weapons for the Abu Nidal terrorist group. It makes at least as much sense to call Rich (a Belgian-born Jew who fled the Nazis in 1942, and an active supporter of Israeli policies over the years) an anti-Semite on this basis as it does to use this against Carter.
Dershowitz also makes great hay over Carter’s receipt of money from the former ruler of of the United Arab Emirates. The Center he ran was closed down because of the very real anti-Semitism that was sometimes generated there, especially after 9/11. But speakers that same center included not only Carter, but Bill Clinton, Al Gore, James Baker, Jacques Chirac and others.
Carter got this money from Zayed bin Sultan Al Nahyan many years ago. Al Nahyan was a world leader who was often praised by many other leaders. He was one of the more popular Arab leaders. The Center named for him did indeed produce some anti-Semitic materials and hosted some anti-Semitic speakers, along with the notable leaders named above. Al Nahyan himself, does not have such a history and the Center which bore his name was closed down because of these well-founded allegations.
One might say that Carter would have been well-advised to give the money back, as Harvard Divinity School did. His not doing so, however, does not brand him an anti-Semite.
Reading Dershowitz’s allegations with a critical eye reveals that he is talking about international finance, an arena where monies change hands and flow from one place to another and where, inevitably, many of the characters are going to have considerable dirt under their fingernails. Yet even at that, while throwing dollar amounts in seven figures make most people’s eyes pop wide open, the actual amounts discussed are hardly enough to have the kind of influence on Carter that Dershowitz suggests.
Just about all of the money Dershowitz refers to goes to the Carter Center, not Carter, and, given the Center’s assets at the end of 2005 were around $375 million, it is highly doubtful that Carter is dutifully obeying his Arab masters, or is, as Dershowitz also speculated, simply blinded by the dollars in his view of Israel and Palestine.
Carter himself recently stated that Saudi money over the years was under 3% of the Center’s budget.
Dershowitz would have us believe that in the context of that kind of operating budget, a few million here or there is enough to get a wealthy man like Carter to write a book for no reason other than to harm Israel and the Jews. Again, it is Dershowitz’s skill in making a preposterous premise believable that should be credited, not the points he is trying to make. Put simply, the level of funding Dershowitz references is hardly enough to significantly Carter’s actions or views. But it is certainly enough for Dershowitz to use to slander Carter.
Sorry, Alan, it was an honest opinion, based on first-hand observation of the effects of occupation on both Palestinians and Israelis.
more level headed material. I commend you.
Missing the point guys:
Carter is just having a fit over the settlements which he blames on Begin et al.
He is mad at the Israeli leaders and shoulda just written them an angry letter.
His book is a travesty—full of BS statements, errors, so one-sided and such.
Jimmy is too personally hurt to be effective: he went over the top with the title for example.
Best, Neal
I read Carter’s book. It was so boring I fell asleep reading it. I fail to see what the controversy is and why Dershowitz is getting so bent out of shape!
Thanks, Mitchell. As usual you’ve done a great job of clarifying the issues and discrediting falsehoods.
Carter is absolutely correct in his analysis and remedy. American Jewish and Christian Zionists must choose the future . . . peace or war? It is not possible any longer to pretend that the Palestinians, are the problem. They are the victims. If the choice by the US is peace then Israel will be pressured to become secure behind it’s 1967 borders. Iranian bellicosity will become irrelevant and there will be no more motivation for Bin Laden’s supporters. The world will be a safer place for all of us if Zionist extremism is no longer condoned for it is largely that that excites world wide Islamic extremism.
Carter is a peace-love-courage activist. Like Gandhi and Mother Teresa
Dershowitz is a war-hate-fear activist. Like Hitler and Bush
President Jimmy Carter could have used the following quote to support his assertion of Israeli control on US government
“Every time we do something you tell me America will do this and will do that . . . I want to tell you something very clear: Don’t worry about American pressure on Israel. We, the Jewish people, control America, and the Americans know it.”
Israeli Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon, October 3, 2001, to Shimon Peres, as reported on Kol Yisrael radio.
Alan Dershowitz gets exceedingly so much attention from the “left” because he himself is a longstanding leftist, who has broken ranks to support the Jewish National Homeland. This type of dissent is simply intolerable among liberals, who morph their attention-spans at any given moment, acting in unison–or at least in the pretense of same.
“It is imperative that the general Arab community and all significant Palestinian groups make it clear that they will end the suicide bombings and other acts of terrorism when international laws and the ultimate goals of the Roadmap for Peace are accepted by Israel.” –J. Carter
So I ask, who knows better of International law, Dershowitz, a Harvard law professor, or Jimmy Carter, a president who, by the end of his single term was having his vetoes routinely and repeatedly overridden by a profoundly Democratic Congress?
Bella Abzuk, one of the first women in congress and a prototype of feminist liberalism, was also an opponent of Mr. Carter and considered him an anti-Semite, decades before it became fashionable, following 9-11-2001.
Mr. Carter’s first and most prolific fault is that he is a liar. His statements are replete with ½ truths, ¼ truths and outright fabrications. The fact that all his lies point in the same general vicinity, namely, as accusations against Israel and vicariously against Jews as a culture, also makes Carter an anti-Semite and a punk.
The fact that as President, Carter vigorously supported the Christian Shah of Iran, who victimized hundreds of thousands of Iranian Muslims and maintained the most brutal secret police in the world at the time (Savak) also makes him a world-class hypocrite.
Signed: another leftist supporter of Israel, from the lower-east-side of Manhattan, who’s parents were commies and civil-rights activists (in the 1960s):
Thanx for this .
American congressmen et all, who are getting payed to favour a third party or are doing this for personal reasons, merely to be elected, are surely committing the worst case of treason against their country.
Pres. Carter will surely be remembered for defending the weak and exposing the Apartheid of the non democratic ISRAEL. This is also thanks to Mr.Dershowitz
By the way, anybody for discussing what is happening now in AFRICA, about global warming, Ebola etc…. or are we obliged to go on over and over about how wonderful is ISRAEL and how wicked are all who do not think so?
Why is every criticism of Israel called anti-semitism? If Israel is a nation then its domestic and foreign policies are as subject to world opinion as any other nation.
All Israelis may be Jews, but not all Jews are Israelis. Incidently, Arabs are also Semites, so that renders the argument ridiculous anyway.
Until recently I lived in a state capital, a small town but a political one. Some friends, American citizens of Palestinian heritage, had been trying to get an appointment with our Congressional rep., to no avail. I knew the Congressman well enough to agree to intercede. I tried for months, finally confronted the officer manager who told me, “You have to understand that the Congressman cannot risk having Arabic names on his appointment calendar.” I also knew the local AIPAC activist. He hosted lavish fundraising parties and carefully monitored those calendars. (Some of my Jewish friends even referred to him as ‘The Temple Fascist.’) Dershowitz bristles at allegations of “Jewish control” of US politics–maybe not, but there certainly is a lot of influence.
Well spoken. I dismiss everything Al D. states. He, not Carter, is the bigot, as proven by his own statements.
Thank you for telling it like it is! I’ve never understod why the (it-doesn’t-exist-of-course) Jewish Lobby is so pleased – on the one hand – with the influence it exerts on Congress and other frightened politicians, and – on the other hand – makes such a to do when those of us who’ve been bloodied by that influence, point it out. Everyone, every single person who disagrees with them or the government of Israel is, by their definition, a bona fide anti-semite. It’s such a dumb argument, but we know only too well, how much attention “victims” get, be it for a beating or some social slight that happened 40 years ago. I’d be a sorry jerk if I saw my Jewish identity only as one of victimization. I want to be like Uri Avnery – a true hero! – a Jew who has unlearned all the Holocaust- think that people like Dershovitz shamelessly wear on their arm like concentration camp numbers.
A recent speech by Hillary Clinton to AIPAC made me nauseous, in its sniveling, creeping crawling servility. Pity poor israel if she gets elected. It oesn’t deserve its American supporters. One should only wish them on one’s worst enemies.
I thought Carter’s book was presented well and did not contain anything specifically anti-semitic although it was critical of some policy of the Isreali government.How can we move forward if we can’t except any critical analysis of history?
Elinor Zind wrote:
“Why is every criticism of Israel called anti-Semitism? . . . . Incidentally, Arabs are also Semites, so that renders the argument ridiculous anyway.”
I myself have been critical of Israel from time-to-time. No one has called me “anti-Semitic.” Because I do so factually and with precise specificity. It’s the “bumper-sticker” people (apparently like yourself) who qualify as anti-Semitic and the fact that some such people consider themselves Jewish–is of no practical moment.
Prof. Bernard Lewis (Princeton) has a very famous book entitled: “Semites and Anti-Semites”, which does a brilliant job of defining how “Anti Semitism” has become a term-of-art defining Jew-Haters. Since Judaism is generally considered a religion, rather then a race, the term “Jew-Haters” can also be picked apart semantically. Call it what you like, its cultural/racial OPPRESSION, which has being ongoing and almost unbroken for 2,600 years.
Superbly researched, reasoned and written, as always, Mitchell!
As a midwestern,college educated, ex-Catholic, I can only say I am appalled at the degree of control Jews indeed have over America. Call me a bigot if you wish, but a little reading of history proves this is not the only country nor period of time where this has happened. God’s chosen people heh? Naturally superior?? I happened to raise a simple question among my Gentile friends of why all the federal reserve chairmen were Jewish and I was immediately labeled as Anti-Semite. Convenient ways to brush off inconvenient questions that might “upset the status quo”. I am just wondering if, when the dollar crashes and a US depression hits our country, and rampant affluence no longer buys off the American public’s acquiesence, will a new Holocaust be in the making? Someone pulls back the curtain to see (or blame) those in control for our troubles? A savvy politican runs against the Jewish Cabal and begins to advocate….
I havn’t read Carter’s book but I have seen at least four televised interviews with him about the book and each time the interviewer (Charlie Rose, Judy Woodruff, et al.) has taken a biased approach to the interview. For my comments about the Woodruff interview see my blog at http://wonderwheels.blogspot.com/2006/11/reality-testing-fails-at-pbs.html
Rose, for example, had already interviewed Carter and his website had scheduled the interview to air on a Monday night, then when I tuned in, Rose informed the audience without explanation that the already completed interview was being postponed until Thursday night (Nov. 30, 2006). Come Thursday night the reason for the postponement became clear. Rose had needed the time to interview Israli Vice Premier Shimon Peres so that Peres’ interview attacking Carter could be shown immediately after Carter’s interview. The comparasion of Rose’s challenging attitude to Carter and his obsequious kid gloves handling of Peres were a perfect example of the influence of the powers that be on the Israeli “debate.”
Carter is the hero for telling it like it is in the occupied territoris: APARTHEID.
Daniel Gillespie:
You wrote:
“As a midwestern, college educated, ex-Catholic, I can only say I am appalled at the degree of control Jews indeed have over America. Call me a bigot if you wish . . “
OK. You’re a bigot. Feel vindicated now?
In reality, the 2% of American Citizens who are considered Jewish, could hardly control the other 98% by themselves. The support that Israel has in the U.S. is the result of Abe Lincoln’s famous quote:
“You can fool some of the people all of the time or all of the people some of the time but ya can’t fool all the people all the time”.
You also wrote:
“. . God’s chosen people heh? Naturally superior?? I happened to raise a simple question among my Gentile friends of why all the federal reserve chairmen were Jewish and I was immediately labeled as Anti-Semite. . “
Jews generally don’t say these things. Certain Christian Evangelicals make these statements. Blaming them on us Hebrews is the proof that you ARE a bigot.
Re: Fed Chairman being Jewish:
And most Secret Service are Mormons. But, is NOT Mormons who appoint these other Mormons to guard the President. Its mainly non-Mormons who have concluded that Mormons make great Secret Service. If the general public believes that Jews are especially proficient at handling money matters, that too can be a form of bigotry, just like when Archie Bunker could, occasionally squeeze out a back-handed complement that “Blacks sure can dance” or some-such.
Your key point is dead on:
Sorry, Alan, it was an honest opinion, based on first-hand observation of the effects of occupation on both Palestinians and Israelis.
Dershowitz’s broadside is intended to distract us from the point that this is legitimate criticsm of Israel’s egregious human rights record in the occupied territories. Carter’s point is that this is not good for either Palestinians or Israelis.
As to the word apartheid, Prof. Norman Finkelstein points out the term was used by many in Israel before Carter, not least among them the editors of Haaretz in Sept. 2006:
“the apartheid regime in the territories remains intact; millions of Palestinians are living without rights, freedom of movement or a livelihood, under the yoke of ongoing Israeli occupation,”
Arik Sharon has made the same comparison.
http://www.counterpunch.org/finkelstein12282006.html
Carter’s book is a basic primer. A more in-depth and more penetrating criticism of the corrupting effects of the occupation on both peoples is the 2005 book by ME journalist Richard Ben Cramer, How Israel Lost: The Four Questions
First, I thank you for providing a forum where one feels free to criticize Israeli policies. The absence of a debate on Israel/Palestine caused by fear of denunciation by being labeled an “Anti-Semite” is unhealthy, bad for the future of the Jewish people, and bad for Israel in the long run.
In my opinion, Pres. Carter was mild in his criticism of attitudes and policies of the Israeli government vis-a-vis the Palestinians. Despite his style, the truth of mistreatment of Palestinians jumped out at me from the page: I am appalled and embarrassed by this account.
I have a big problem with the use of the word “Anti-Samitism” , especially when used by people of Arabic origin against Israeli policy.
Semites are the descendents of Sem, the eldest son of Noah. This includes Arabs as well as Jews. By denying their kinship with the Arabs, this further isolates the Jewish people, because it perpetuates the the false idea that the Jews are a separate race unto themselves. I see this as disservice to the Jewish people. As we know, words have power, and I see danger in the misuse of this word.
I would also like to recommend the book “Beyond Chuzpah” by Norman Finklestein. He addresses a lot of the statements by AD and puts them into a much broader context. I’d explain more but I don’t want to be a spoiler.
Judy Martialay:
You wrote:
“I have a big problem with the use of the word “Anti-Samitism” , especially when used by people of Arabic origin against Israeli policy.”
OK. What would YOU call someone who dislikes either Jews or non-Jewish people of Hebrew ethnicity? Anyone . . . ? Anyone . . .? Let me guess . . . “Smart “. . ? perhaps. “Open Minded“ . . possibly? “Suitable to for dating” . . ?
We live in an ocean of “code words” already. Carter himself is famous for his use of innuendo-based (and biased) “code-words”, such as his referring to Ariel Sharon as “strong and forceful”, rather then the standard “pushy” (as in: “pushy-Jew).. [Op-Ed NY Times 2002]. The term “Anti-Semite” has been used in the vernacular for centuries but is no longer considered a suitable description, mainly because the people who object to it would prefer to assert that no bigotry against Jews even exists. They would have us believe that it is the Jews who are the ‘bigots’ and therefore no term-of-art would be appropriate to describe their suffering. So, you tell us Ms. Martialay (and those who have voiced similar comments), what is the more appropriate nomenclature? I’m a child of modernity. I’ll go along with (and adopt) anything that conveys the correct meaning, in a single sound-bite.
against Israeli policy
I’d call them “critics of Israeli policy.”
Legitimate criticism of Israeli policy is not anti-Semitism.
Are Carter’s facts in dispute? If so, then please dispute them. (Old lawyer’s adage: “If the facts are with you, pound the facts. If the facts are against you, pound the table.”)
To John Baker:
With profound pleasure. Come back tomorrow around this time and I will have posted a re-print of Carter’s N.Y. Times Op-Ed statements from 2002–with comments showing his obvious bias. I have not begun to pick-through Carter’s latest slanders because, not being a lawyer, I don’t get paid enough to antagonize myself with his snake’s tongue wet-willying my ear. Besides, his previous statements are far more dispositive because history has already proven many of them false. For now, I will only comment on the title to his book: “Peace Not Apartheid”, which is a blood-liable onto itself. Please see:
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/reviews/carter.html for exact details on this newest chapter of Carter’s “Duke’s of Plains, Georgia” work of fiction.
Have a nice evening.
“Elinor Zind Says:
February 8th, 2007 at 7:55 pm
Why is every criticism of Israel called anti-semitism?”
Answer: It’s not.
Can you actually find someone who claims that “all criticism of Israel is anti-semitism”?
Why did you invent this allegation, and then argue against the allegation that you invented?
Elinor, what I have noticed is that people who like to criticize Israel DISHONESTLY, and then take flack for doing that, pretend that they are being attacked “just for criticizing Israel”.
I personally believe that criticism of Israel drifts into anti-semitism when it is based on (a) lies (e.g. using the term “wall” for a barrier that is 96% a fence!), or (b) presentation of partial truths designed to mislead, or (c) uneven application of human right standards (e.g. are you applying the same standards to Saudi Arabia, for example, that you apply to Israel?).
But it is wrong to call “all criticism of Israel” anti-semitism. I’m not aware of anyone that would argue otherwise.
Are you?
criticism of Israel
This gets into the concept of what is called “the new antisemitism.” Wikipedia has a good discussion of the controversy surrounding that term:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_antisemitism
Farash wrote, “[I’m] another leftist supporter of Israel, from the lower-east-side of Manhattan, who’s parents were commies and civil-rights activists.”
Hey Farash, does your alleged progressiveness include the human rights of Palestinians?
Farash ranted: Mr. Carter’s first and most prolific fault is that he is a liar. . . also makes Carter an anti-Semite and a punk. . . a world-class hypocrite . . . snake’s tongue … liar . . . bigot . . .
Farash, it takes One to know One. Why don’t you take your vicious and hateful attitude and Troll another site other than this one. Nobody would miss you here, I promise.
To John Baker:
In follow-up of my post yesterday, please see below:
On 04-21-2002, Jimmy Carter published an Op-Ed article in the New York Times entitled:
“America Can Persuade Israel to Make a Just Peace”. The title (in itself) is highly biased and misleading because it pre-supposes that Israel is patently unjust and that the responsibility is on they alone, (cajoled by the U.S. public opinion—that he seeks to foment), to bring peace to that long troubled region.
And that sums up Carter’s style. While he knows little about history, even that part of history that he presided over, he is a lifetime grand-master of linguistic disinginuity.
The single most disturbing paragraph in his article stated:
: “Ariel Sharon is a strong and forceful man and has never equivocated in his public declarations nor deviated from his ultimate purpose. His rejection of all peace agreements that included Israeli withdrawal from Arab lands, his invasion of Lebanon, his provocative visit to the Temple Mount, the destruction of villages and homes, the arrests of thousands of Palestinians and his open defiance of President George W. Bush’s demand that he comply with international law have all been orchestrated to accomplish his ultimate goals: to establish Israeli settlements as widely as possible throughout occupied territories and to deny Palestinians a cohesive political existence.”
“Strong and forceful” [read: Pushy]
“His {Sharon’s} rejection of all peace agreements that included Israeli withdrawal from Arab lands”
Except for Sharon’s direct involvement in the Israeli withdrawal from the Sinai and recently, from Gaza.
“his invasion of Lebanon”
Which was under the direction of P.M. Begin and NOT Sharon’s decision.
“his provocative visit to the Temple Mount”
Had the disputed religious shrine in question been a Jewish Synagogue, located in a Muslim country–such as Turkey (A NATO ally) it would have been burnt to the ground over 100 times over by now. We do not know how many 1000’s of times such a Jewish house-of-worship would have been destroyed in other Muslim countries, such as Saudi Arabia, since no Jews are even allowed inside the Saudi Kingdom, let alone allowed to build religious temples.
“his open defiance of President George W. Bush’s demand that he comply with international law”
Carter has never shown which (if any) “International law” is being defied and even less, how anyone (Sharon or other) has acted in “defiance” of George W. Bush’s demand. These false claims simply sound catchy and so Carter propagates them. In any OTHER legal matter, it is exclusively up to a JUDICIAL TRIBUNAL to decide which party is breaching any laws. However, when it comes to Israel, innuendo is more then sufficient.
Lastly: “ . . . to establish Israeli settlements as widely as possible throughout occupied territories and to deny Palestinians a cohesive political existence.”
Israel considers these territories “disputed”, not “occupied” and U.N.S.C. Res. 242 does NOT use the term “Occupied”. Carter substitutes his extensive “wisdom” for that of the United Nations Security Council, and then (wrongly) asserts that Israel is violating the United Nations. As far as a “cohesive political existence” (that Sharon is accused of denying the Arabs), if this statement was not so pathetic, tragic and nauseating, it would be the most hilarious piece of ‘dead-pan’ comedy since the Borat movie. Now the Palestinians have their “cohesive political existence” and the result is a shooting match between rival Arab factions. The only thing they can seem to agree on is their mutual hatred of Hebrews.
The Carter article also stated:
“He {Yasser Arafat} may well see the suicide attacks as one of the few ways to retaliate against his tormentors, to dramatize the suffering of his people, or as a means for him, vicariously, to be a martyr.
This statement lends overt support and sympathy to terror. Carter repeats a slightly watered-down version of this statement in his new book.
I could go on and on AND ON but if the reader is not compelled by the examples already mentioned, 10,000 more pages won’t alter their understanding either. However, since Carter relies so heavily on his personal definition of “International Law”, I herewith direct the readers to a web link below, that explains in details the history and nature of the dispute re: U.N. Res. 242.
http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Peace%20Process/Guide%20to%20the%20Peace%20Process/Statements%20Clarifying%20the%20Meaning%20of%20UN%20Security%20C
For all these reasons, plus many, many more–too voluminous to mention, Carter is a Jew-hater of the first magnitude and a propagandist of Hemingway caliber. Follow him if you like but he will lead you to hell in a hand-basket. His sole contribution to a lasting peace in the Mid-East was to agree to pay “tribute” in the billions of dollars, to the governments of Egypt and Jordan. Whether one agrees with that strategy or not, it is hardly cause for anyone to receive a Nobel Peace Prize.
To Jacob (without a last name):
You asked me:
“Hey Farash, does your alleged progressiveness include the human rights of Palestinians?”
Firstly, I refer to this group as “Palestinian-Arabs” because according to my understanding of history, Arabs are NOT the only people entitled to the description as “Palestinians”. Hebrews were ‘Palestinians’ before the Arabs.
To specifically answer your question, YES. All peoples are entitled to the same human rights. One right that NO PEOPLE are entitled to is the leave to re-write history—–a favorite pastime of the pro-Arab and anti-Jewish causes (both).
You asserted:
“Farash ranted . . “
Your definition of a “rant” is another’s version of being enlightened.
You further stated:
“Farash, it takes One to know One.”
Another catchy ‘bumper-sticker’, direct from the God-head fountain of “bumper-sticker” mentality. Of course, your statement is patently illogical, as a “liar” could not be expected to automatically know another liar. A truth-teller would be in a far better position to know a liar—-except in the fabled land of “bumper-stickers”.
You suggested:
“Why don’t you take your vicious and hateful attitude and Troll another site other than this one. Nobody would miss you here, I promise.”
When the “Bumper-Sticker” people run short of adhesives, they next turn to ejection of anyone who debates them. Nothing new. Here is a very old adage, circa from the Bolshevik revolution:
–Bolshevik leader:
“Come the revolution, we will all be eating strawberries and cream!”
Bolshevik worker:
“But I am allergic to strawberries and dairy gives me gas”
Bolshevik leader:
“YOU WILL EAT THE STRAWBERRIES AND THE CREAM AND YOU WILL LIKE THEM BOTH–AND IF NOT COMRADE, YOU WILL LEAVE!”
As far as your assertion that “Nobody would miss you here”, more’s the pity. But aside from that, it is sad that you take it upon yourself to speak for every single other reader. Another standard tactic of the irrational fact-free.
To John Baker:
The Liberal Feminist author, Phillis Chesler wrote a book entitled: The New Anti-Semitism:
http://www.amazon.com/New-Anti-Semitism-Current-Crisis-About/dp/0787978035/sr=1-1/qid=1171222085/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/102-3154219-4496132?ie=UTF8&s=books
To quote in pertainant part:
“The Last Acceptable Prejudice:
Politically correct, multicultural world, anti-Semitism is the last acceptable prejudice. Today, Jews in Israel, Africa, Europe, and America have been taunted, beaten, terrorized, blown up, Wounded, disabled for life, and murdered; their synagogues torched, their cemeteries vandalized. Many intellectuals justified or minimized these criminal acts.
In the past it was clear that right-wing fascists, nationalists, Racial supremacists had led the mobs in torching the Jews. Left wing intellectuals only worked with Jews who had fled the confines of the ghetto and of a religious Jewish life; otherwise they viewed Jews with suspicion, as being rigid, intolerant, unenlightened, and hopeless on the question of individual and women’s rights—which often was all too true.
Although most Jews lived in abject poverty, left-wing intellectuals viewed them as monied capitalists because some Jews were wealthy. International working-class-oriented intellectuals did not respect Zionists, whose very existence suggested that intellectuals were no better than others when it came to the Jews. Some Jews had learned this the hard way and had thrown their lot in with the Zionists, not the Bolsheviks. The Jews have been accused not only of killing God, but also of running the world’s newspapers, controlling all governments, and oddly enough, of plotting communist revolutions. Christian anti-Judaism and anti-Semitism may be the boilerplate, the template for all subsequent racisms. This fight against the Jews is almost as old as the Jews. In the past, in Europe, Jews were ritually and continually slaughtered and did not, could not, fight back, partly because they-were forbidden to arm themselves. To cover their considerable nakedness, some Jews either embraced or were seen as embracing a form of pacifism that is not always recommended in the Torah. THIS DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE TORAH IS A NAZI-LIKE DOCUMENT THAT PREACHES WAR, HATRED, AND RACIAL SUPERIORITY, FOR THAT IS FAR FROM THE TRUTH. Any number of secular liberals, leftists, and feminists have said this, but I say they are wrong. The five books of Moses, the Prophets, the Writings, the Mishna, and the G’mara, which together compose the Talmud, are amazing, complicated texts filled with ethical laws, fabulous tales, horrifying deeds, and interpretations both divine and absurd. Anti-Semites love to judge the Jews harshly for refusing to behave like dead Jews or good Christians, and while the Torah definitely has some hair-raising scenes in it, so does the world and so does every other sacred book. Although the Prince of Peace might have been nonviolent, his followers were decidedly less so. The doctrine of surrendering to one’s fate nonviolently and of forgiving one’s enemies may indeed be Christ-like, but this oriental fatalism and courage were not easily transplanted to Europe, and thus many of Christ’s followers subsequently launched the most aggressive military crusades against other Christians and against Arabs, Muslims, and Jews. Incidentally, most Catholics did not view the Church, the Crusades, or the Inquisition as anti-Christian because they practiced war, not peace. Today, modern anti-Semitism also partakes of a new unconscious psychological dynamic. Today, anti-Semites are enraged when their designated Christ-sacrifice fights back, refuses to turn the other cheek, and arms himself not only spiritually but with sky-commanding Phantom Jets and atomic weaponry. Enter the hatred of Israel as a new form of anti-Semitism. Let me be clear: I am not suggesting that Jews are Christ-like, only that anti-Semites often expect this to be so. This is a horrendous expectation. May I suggest that, psychologically, this precise expectation is often at the root of disappointment with the Jewish people when we turn out NOT to be ready to die for the sins of others, and when we turn out to be no better than other peoples either. The very world that so readily demonizes Jews also unconsciously expects Jews to be better than everyone else, to he that “light unto the nations,” and when we are not, the heartbreak and rage are very great, which leads to the demonization and to the collective punishment of the Jews. Sometimes some Jews are better than barbarians; in many ways the state of Israel towers above its neighbors both morally, politically, and in terms of religious freedoms—but some say, sadly, only barely. David Ben-Gurion, that most admirable of secularists and Israel’s first prime minister, would be horrified by some of the fundamentalist excesses practiced by both his religious and anti-religious children and grandchildren. Sometimes Israelis behave in the same way that people of other nations do, and for this we are not forgiven. All the incredibly positive things that Israel also does are instantly forgotten because we are not supposed to make any mistakes, not to mention really terrible ones.
North American Intellectuals
A politically correct madness seems to have hijacked most American universities. A steady stream of anti-Israel courses conferences, demonstrations, petitions, debates, books, and articles have—almost overnight—come to characterize campus life.
But this has been under way for a long time. And the truth is that I and many other well-intentioned professors may have had a hand in this. This is not what I had envisioned when, in 1970, I pioneered courses in women’s studies and lectured on the psychological effects of discrimination and violence on oppressed colonized, and racially despised peoples. However, hard-core (mainly armchair) leftists and sexual and ethnic identity politicians have tried to link their long-standing and long-inactive opposition to American imperialism, racism, and sexism to whatever struggle garners the most headlines and foundation funding. Thus, many American professors, university-connected social justice activists and public intellectuals have written against Israel in rigorously self-righteous and simplistic ways.
Like their European counterparts, many—too many—American intellectuals and academics are passionately secularist, pro-socialism Anti-religion, pro–affirmative action, pro-prostitution, pro-pornography anti death-penalty, pro-abortion, and anti-war—unless, of course the armed struggle is being waged by revolutionaries against the colonial, capitalist state.
Noam Chomsky is a linguist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and is best known for his views on imperialism, colonialism, the Jews, and the Middle East. He has supported Holocaust deniers like Robert Faurisson and campus campaigns to divest in Israel. He is a master of Orwellian linguistics; thus, he refers to the Gaza strip as “Soweto like”” and compares Israel’s desire for peace with that of “Hitler, who also wanted peace on his terms.”” In a 2002 speech at Harvard, Chomsky again pointed out that the Israelis, like the Nazis, consider their extermination efforts to be counterterrorism.” . . Chomsky is the kind of leftist who, on the one hand, faults America for having an imperfect democracy but who, on the other hand, utterly forgives its total absence in Islamic countries. According to social scientist George Jochnowitz, in Chomsky’s book 9/11, Chomsky equates the 1998 American bombing of the al-Shifa pharmaceutical plant in Sudan (which, arguably, might have killed tens of thousands of people by depriving them of needed medicine), with the combined Russian and Chinese planned famines which killed nearly ONE HUNDRED MILLION of their own peoples.
Worse Than Nazis:
Perhaps some American Jews, both men and women, hope that they are the “right” kind of Jews and if they are the first to condemn the “wrong” kind of Jews they will be the remnant saved. Perhaps they are annoyed and angry that the Jewish Problem continues plague even them—the first among internationalists, yiddishites secularists alrightniks. They blame the nearest Jew, not the moore Distant and powerful anti-Semite. How different is this from the psychology of the most assimilated and wealthy of Jews in pre-Nazi Europe, in Germany in particular?
. . .The new anti-Semite says, “The Zionists are a criminal gang; They should be shot; They are far worse than the Nazis,” and so on. They do not say, “What a tragedy that anti-Semitism has returned and how disappointing that Sharon and Arafat have both failed to make peace.” Instead, they insistently, obsessively, liken Israel to the Third Reich, as if doing so neutralizes or cancels the significance of the Holocaust. For years European anti-Semites resented being made to feel guilty about their role in the Holocaust. Having their proud Orwellian snouts pressed into their own barnyard shit is precisely what they experienced as “Jewish aggression.” Characterizing the (less than perfect) Jews as Nazis is one way an anti-Semite can fight back. If the Jewish Israelis are as guilty as the Nazis, then the Holocaust never happened, or because it happened only to Nazis, it therefore doesn’t count. Everything is equal or the same; therefore nothing has any meaning. (This is also known as false moral equivalency.)”
Carter is a Jew-hater
No evidence of that here, nor in his book, which you criticize freely but have not read. Anyway, the object was not to prove your slurs against Carter, but to dispute the facts he presents, which you have not done. The review at the link which you provided contains a number of misrepresentations and distortions of Carter’s points. When people respond with ad hominem attacks and start making stuff up instead of rebutting what an author actually says, I have to assume they are out of ammmunition. The bottom line is that Israel has a terrible record of well-documented human rights abuses in the occupied territories, including the systematic state-sponsored torture of tens of thousands of Palestinians over forty years. (see the B’Tselem website:
http://www.btselem.org/English/Torture/Index.asp )
Isidor wrote, “my understanding of history, Arabs are NOT the only people entitled to the description as “Palestinians”. Hebrews were ‘Palestinians’ before the Arabs.” Your understanding is debatable on who the first Palestinians were, but you would need to believe this to rationalize the occupation of Palestinian lands. Nevertheless, Palestinian Arabs are not treated on the same level as Hebrew Palestinians.
“One right that NO PEOPLE are entitled to is the leave to re-write history—–a favorite pastime of the pro-Arab and anti-Jewish causes.”
Or, Isidor, of the anti-Arab and Pro-Jewish government causes.
“Your definition of a “rant” is another’s version of being enlightened.”
In my view, Isidor, childish name calling isn’t the sign of being enlightened.
” . . . a“liar” could not be expected to automatically know another liar. A truth-teller would be in a far better position to know a liar.” I know my statement was bumpersticker, but I don’t see you as really a person telling the whole truth, you really seem to be irrational in your hatred towards Carter and others who seek justice for the oppressed people in the West Bank.
“As far as your assertion that “Nobody would miss you here”, more’s the pity. But aside from that, it is sad that you take it upon yourself to speak for every single other reader. Another standard tactic of the irrational fact-free.”
I don’t see anyone but you stating that. The reason I wrote that is because you don’t seem to be supportive of this organization. And I wonder why you would want to post here unless it is to chastise all of us or you enjoy calling people names. Isidor, you make it difficult for people who are sensitive to the goals of the Jewish Voice For Peace to post here because of concerns of being flamed.
John Baker, Esq.:
Yet, you offer no examples for debate, as I have done. Are you sure you were never appointed a sitting judge?
Anyway, its like Don Imus said in his 1970’s album, referring to a story, relating to a college classmate–whom people considered crazy…. . .
“He wasn’t S-I-C-K . . . , he just liked to expose himself in front of everyone !.”
You apparently excuse Carter because you agree with him. Not uncommon, especially when people have the advantage of superior numbers (1.2 Billion Muslims + 1.~Billion Christians vs- 14 million Hebrews – some of whom have jumped on your band-wagon too).
Carter has (aside from his personal conclusions) made a mockery of the historical record. Both my post and the linked report I referenced at: Jewish Virtual Library had to stop counting, rather then invite scrutiny from the Guinness Book of World Records Committee. But, by your apparent sense of fairness, that does not prove Carter is motivated by other then an unbiased desire for equity. Why am I not surprised? When his Brother, Billy, opened a beer company, visited Libya and began making certain public remarks that went beyond this “golden line” of socially acceptable language, members of the United States Congress complained because even then, Pres. Carter refrained from distancing himself from Billy or his statements. What possible advantage would any bigot have in crossing that golden line, unless he (she) is trying to alter the position of the line, as in Mel Gibson? Politicians rarely speak that frankly. Nonetheless, in totality, I believe a convincing case has been made that Carter is biased against Jews.
Whether or not Israel performs 100% according to ‘decent’ human rights standards is mostly irrelevant, for reasons stated by Phillis Chesler above. The proper approach would be to specifically state what issue(s) they are to be criticized over. While doing so, remember that the accuser must also be able to honestly state that they would handle the matter differently.
For example, below is a quote from a high-ranking Vatican official, following the murder of two Turkish Priests:
“Enough now with this turning the other cheek! It’s our duty to protect ourselves,” Monsignor Velasio De Paolis, secretary of the Vatican’s supreme court, thundered in the daily La Stampa.
http://reuters.myway.com/article/20060223/2006-02-23T175457Z_01_L2369100_RTRIDST_0_NEWS-RELIGION-VATICAN-MUSLIMS-DC.html
Or:
Thursday, January 19, 2006—> El Mundo.es (News Spain):
http://www.elmundo.es/elmundo/2006/01/19/internacional/1137672671.html
English translation: French President Jacques Chirac has said:
“France would be READY TO USE NUCLEAR WEAPONS AGAINST ANY STATE WHICH LAUNCHED A TERRORIST ATTACK AGAINST IT.”
Speaking at a NUCLEAR SUBMARINE BASE in north-western France, Mr. Chirac said:
A French response “could be conventional. It could also be of another nature.”
He said France’s NUCLEAR FORCES “had been configured for such an event”.
English version (BBC):
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4627862.stm
Anyone who criticizes a Jewish nation, that has endured unprovoked terrorism for almost 60 years for using “excessive force” while simultaneously threatening that EVEN ONE such instance (on his own soil) would result in mass civilian vaporization, is also presumed to be a Jew-hater. (Also, he did not specify WHERE France’s submarine-based ballistic arsenal would target.)
The person who criticizes Israel must be willing to:
1) Compare their own government’s actions (or would-be hypothetical actions) and:
2) Have some reasonable explanation, if they are applying double-standards, to even 3rd-party countries such as Saudi Arabia and:
3) Work within the confines of even a senile remembrance of history.
Carter fails on ALL THREE points, where only one flunk is acceptable evidence of racial/ethnic/religious bias. On the history point, he fails so miserably as to raise the standard for all others to follow, if they want to successfully publish propaganda.
Once again Mr. Baker, pick a point that was raised by myself or Mr. Mitchell Bard in is review and debate it. We have furnished dozens. You have referenced none.
You have just simply concluded that chronic lying and hypocritical behavior don’t constitute ethnic bias. Try telling that to a Black or Hispanic or a Gay person. Only Jews are expected to function in a “boot camp” of such abuse.
Have a nice evening.
Jacob:
You wrote:
“Or, Isidor, of the anti-Arab and Pro-Jewish government causes.”
Try reading: “Jews, God and History” by Max Dimont; “Semites and Anti-Semites” by Prof. Bernard Lewis (Princeton) and “From Time Immemorial” by Joan Peters. Do you have a reading list for me? Because I have had this same question-and-answer session repeatedly on other blogs and the result is usually the same. Either no counter-references at all, or ‘freakie-diekie’ web pages & sometimes flyers, printed in advance of university anti-Zionism rallies.
“childish name calling . . “
How else would one seek to ethically indicted for the accusations being asserted?
You concluded:
“The reason I wrote that is because you don’t seem to be supportive of this organization. And I wonder why you would want to post here unless it is to chastise all of us or you enjoy calling people names. Isidor, you make it difficult for people who are sensitive to the goals of the Jewish Voice For Peace to post here because of concerns of being flamed.”
There’s a definition for that exact crime: Its called FREE SPEECH. I have called no one names and so it makes sense that you don’t directly quote me. You process my statements and mis-regurgitate them. (By the way, I also Blog on Muslim web sites where it appears I am more welcome then here, but I digress.) I guarantee that the web-master has already received a few complaints about me and requests to censor. This would be typical for fringe-left motis-operandi. To his credit, he has avoided doing so. If all you want is a place wherein people can profusely agree with each other, then, there is such a place: Its called a Midras school, and these can be found in Saudi Arabia, except, if you are Jewish, you would not be granted a visa to enter the Kingdom.
Have a nice evening.
Just a few points:
pushy Jew
Your words; not Carter’s. The Israeli press btw calls Sharon “the bulldozer.”
and U.N.S.C. Res. 242 does NOT use the term “Occupied”.
Well, actually it does:
“(1) Withdrawl of Israeli forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict.”
I believe that by “international law” Carter is referring variously to, depending on context, the Geneva Conventions (e.g., The Fourth Geneva Convention), binding resolutions of the U. N. Security Council, or to the decisions handed down by the International Court of Justice.
Now I’ll force you to read something from Carter’s book, in the hope that you will then stop spreading misinformation on this issue. At the end of the book, Carter outlines the steps that must be taken to create peace. Here is step one (emphasis in the original):
a. “The security of Israel must be guaranteed. The Arabs must acknowledge openly and specifically that Israel is a reality and has a right to exist in peace, behind secure and recognized borders, and with a firm Arab pledge to terminate any further acts of violence against the legally constituted nation of Israel.”
Doesn’t sound like the thinking of a Jew-hater to me. Carter is a friend of Israel and a friend of the Jewish people.
Isidor wrote, “There’s a definition for that exact crime: Its called FREE SPEECH. I have called no one names and so it makes sense that you don’t directly quote me. You process my statements and mis-regurgitate them. (By the way, I also Blog on Muslim web sites where it appears I am more welcome then here, but I digress.)
Isidor, I’m not against free speech nor that you post here. In fact, I now feel it is probably beneficial for us in this organization to hear other viewpoints so we don’t become complacent in our views. I just felt that you would be more at home with sites, such as the one Professor Dershowitz has, than with one such as this. I now see that I was incorrect.
By the way, even though I totally disagree with his viewpoints on the Middle East, I think Professor Dershowitz is a great US Constitutional Scholar and civil rights advocate. He is one of the reasons why I joined the ACLU when I was in graduate school. I also hold his unpopular views on religion. Other than the Middle East, Dr. Dershowitz and I think alike.
Isidor wrote, “Do you have a reading list for me?”
I’ll start working on one. Later.
Jacob
To: John Baker:
Ok. You snagged me on a rare mis-quotation. Below is exactly what 242 says in pertinent part:
“Affirms that the fulfillment of Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include the application of both the following principles:
1. Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;
2. Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force;
Affirms further the necessity
For guaranteeing freedom of navigation through international waterways in the area;
For achieving a just settlement of the refugee problem;
For guaranteeing the territorial inviolability and political independence of every State in the area, through measures including the establishment of demilitarized zones; . . . “
It does NOT say that Israel (the nation) must withdraw from such stated boundaries, only that the IAF must withdraw. The Res. goes on to speak of establishing “demilitarized zones”, (not “international” zones) which then adds extra merit to my above observation. Moreover, there is a genuine question if Jerusalem is even to be considered legally “occupied” (versus ‘reclaimed’ from occupation—2 different things) wherein Israel has always believed that it was intended as theirs, based on the earlier language of 1947. Lastly, suppose that your reading (interpretation) was exactly, precisely correct, (in 1967)? Israel has since signed a permanent and fully comprehensive peace deal with Jordan, who could be the only possible OTHER owner of those parts of Jerusalem, now in dispute. Palestine is not now or has never before in history been a nation. A legal “occupation” under international treaty law, can only take place between two nations. So at a minimum, there is a genuine dispute as to what the 242 wording intended. Plus, the Arabs have never complied with their responsibilities under 242: namely: “Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force;” This provision stands independent of the first provision. Israel has returned about 90+% of the land it acquired in 1967 but the Arab militant armies have not even gone 10% to stop the belligerency.
Lord Caradon, (U.K. official U.N. diplomat) interviewed on Kol Israel in February 1973:
Question: “This matter of the (definite) article which is there in French and is missing in English, is that really significant?”
Answer: “The purposes are perfectly clear, the principle is stated in the preamble, the necessity for withdrawal is stated in the operative section. And then the essential phrase which is not sufficiently recognized is that withdrawal should take place to secure and recognized boundaries, and these words were very carefully chosen: they have to be secure and they have to be recognized. They will not be secure unless they are recognized. And that is why one has to work for agreement. This is essential. I would defend absolutely what we did. It was not for us to lay down exactly where the border should be. I know the 1967 border very well. It is not a satisfactory border, it is where troops had to stop in 1947, just where they happened to be that night, that is not a permanent boundary…
Mr. Michael Stewart, Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (U.K) , in reply to a question in Parliament, 17 November 1969:
Question: “What is the British interpretation of the wording of the 1967 Resolution? Does the Right Honourable Gentleman understand it to mean that the Israelis should withdraw from all territories taken in the late war?”
Mr. Stewart: “No, Sir. That is not the phrase used in the Resolution. The Resolution speaks of secure and recognized boundaries. These words must be read concurrently with the statement on withdrawal.”
Mr. Joseph Sisco, Assistant U.S. Secretary of State, 12 July 1970 (NBC “Meet the Press”):
“That Resolution did not say ‘withdrawal to the pre-June 5 lines’. The Resolution said that the parties must negotiate to achieve agreement on the so-called final secure and recognized borders. In other words, the question of the final borders is a matter of negotiations between the parties”..
Yet, Carter in his new book states that every U.S. government since 1967 has agreed in recognition of the need for the nation of Israel to withdraw to pre-1967 borders. It would have been exceedingly simple for the Resolution to have clearly said: “The borders of the nation of Israel to return to June 3, 1967.” That would have ended the debate. The wording did not say that.
Eugene V. Rostow, Professor of Law and Public Affairs, Yale University, who, in 1967, was US Under-Secretary of State for Political Affairs:
a) “… Paragraph 1 (i) of the Resolution calls for the withdrawal of Israeli armed forces ‘from territories occupied in the recent conflict’, and not ‘from the territories occupied in the recent conflict’. Repeated attempts to amend this sentence by inserting the word ‘the’ failed in the Security Council. It is, therefore, not legally possible to assert that the provision requires Israeli withdrawal from all the territories now occupied under the cease-fire resolutions to the Armistice Demarcation lines.” (American Journal of International Law, Volume 64, September 1970, p. 69)
b) “The agreement required by paragraph 3. of the Resolution, the Security Council said, should establish ‘secure and recognized boundaries’ between Israel and its neighbors ‘free from threats or acts of force’, to replace the Armistice Demarcation lines established in 1949, and the cease-fire lines of June 1967. The Israeli armed forces should withdraw to such lines as part of a comprehensive agreement, settling all the issues mentioned in the Resolution, and in a condition of peace.” (American Journal of International Law, Volume 64, September 1970, p. 68)
C. USSR (who preferred Israel to withdraw to pre 1,200-BC borders)
Mr. Vasily Kuznetsov said in discussions that preceded the adoption of Resolution 242:
“… Phrases such as ‘secure and recognized boundaries’. What does that mean? What boundaries are these? Secure, recognized – by whom, for what? Who is going to judge how secure they are? Who must recognize them? … There is certainly much leeway for different interpretations which retain for Israel the right to establish new boundaries and to withdraw its troops only as far as the lines which it judges convenient.” (S/PV. 1373, p. 112, of 9.11.67). The Russians were indeed correct.
The world wanted a Security Council resolution and so it settled for the language that all permanent members would agree not to veto. This is a parallel to Ben Franklin vehemently opposing slavery, but casting the deciding vote in favor of legal slavery in the U.S., rather the scuttling the entire project. In the end, that single reluctant vote resulted in the U.S. Civil War and the 242 language may result in a similar conflict. We shall see. In the interim, to place all the blame on the Israelis (as Carter does) is a biased position.
If you are speaking about Geneva Conventions, these rules mandate that if a sovereign nation is attacked on their soil and they repulse the attack and capture enemy land in the process that that may hold and keep such land so acquired. 242 was actually an abrogation of the general rules that should have governed. However, those countries that supported Israel felt vindicated, because at least Israel would be promised peace and security, which they never received.
You concluded:
“The security of Israel must be guaranteed. The Arabs must acknowledge openly and specifically that Israel is a reality and has a right to exist in peace, behind secure and recognized borders, and with a firm Arab pledge to terminate any further acts of violence against the legally constituted nation of Israel.” –J. Carter.
Yeah, right. And cigarettes don’t cause lung cancer and the check’s in the mail and O.J. Simpson is innocent. Its interesting that Carter’s plea for peace comes “At the end of the book,” which should be viewed as no coincidence at all because in his view, AFTER the Jews have surrendered, the Arabs then must be expected to play nice. Besides, what else could he possibly have said? Lets see: Perhaps . . . After the Arabs get a few more suicide attacks out of their system, then, they should make peace”??? That would not just be anti-Semitic but genocide-esque. Once can be plenty anti-Semitic without being genocidal. If he seriously expects such a plan to work, the he is naive. If not, he is being cute, though equally anti-Semitic. As to Sharon: Had Sharon been flagrently Gay, for example, Carter would NOT have mentioned that he was “on the sweet side” when describing his political positions. The very first sentence in Carter’s 2002 article is “Sharon is a strong and forceful man”. OK. Isn’t Clinton? Wasn’t Reagan? Colon Powell could also be so described and maybe even John Kerry. It only was worth mentioning in the context of Sharon’s personal style, not his political decisions. Carter is NOT going to use the word: “Pushy”. Just as “All American” has become a code-word for “lilly white”, Jew-haters also have traditionally employed their own venacular. That statement was completely unnecessary from the Op-Ed piece and therefore stood out as conspicious.
Carter is a friend of Israel and a friend of the Jewish people.
…and a friend of peace.
This book is the memoir of a man who has spent nearly four decades trying to bring a resolution to the Arab-Israeli conflict. His critics should ask themselves what they have done for the sake of peace. Each of us should ask. Are we part of the solution, or part of the problem? Salamaat/Shalom.
John Baker:
You wrote:
“This book is the memoir of a man who has spent nearly four decades trying to bring a resolution to the Arab-Israeli conflict.”
It attempts to be far more then a memoir. It attempts to set an historically accurate record of critical events, which it can not possibly do, because it lacks factual accuracy on most levels. It also lacks any balance between the interests of the parties and wrongly casts each and every disagreement, as an Israeli blockade against the otherwise natural and organic peace, that would automatically set in, if not for those unreasonable Hebrews.
Carter is a man of peace and I have said so before. That does not make him a man of justice. He seeks the most personally convenient solutions, because it costs him absolutely nothing. He endeavors to speak on behalf of each and every U.S. administration, both before and after his own.
“Part of the problem/solution?”
Of course, that depends fully on one’s perspective. When Churchill’s government circulated a communication to the Allies, urging them to avoid accepting any Jewish refugees from Europe, as not to upset ‘England’s strategic allies’ [read: Arabs], he surely believed that he was being part of the solution and ultimately, maybe even a friend to the Jews—whom he probably saw as a lost cause, if not for the chance to beat Hitler. Everyone thinks they are part of some sort of ‘solution’, however large or small. No one is going to accept that they are part of any larger ‘problem’, without taking corrective steps.
Carter is a longstanding friend to the Arab nations, including some of the most repressive regimes, such as Saudi Arabia. He is a friend to himself and his legacy. Third, he thinks he is a friend to the United States though that is also debatable, depending on one’s long-term perspective. He only flirts with being a friend to the Jews, insomuch as his revisionist history and fully wishful logic is true, accurate and sensible. Since lies can never be truths, and since those lies almost exclusively cut against Israel and its supporters, Carter can not be considered a serious friend.
Hi Mitchell,
this section was confusing to me. Perhaps you could clarify for those of us who don’t know the story. thanks
jiro
The Center he ran was closed down because of the very real anti-Semitism that was sometimes generated there, especially after 9/11. But speakers that same center included not only Carter, but Bill Clinton, Al Gore, James Baker, Jacques Chirac and others.
Carter got this money from Zayed bin Sultan Al Nahyan many years ago. Al Nahyan was a world leader who was often praised by many other leaders. He was one of the more popular Arab leaders. The Center named for him did indeed produce some anti-Semitic materials and hosted some anti-Semitic speakers, along with the notable leaders named above. Al Nahyan himself, does not have such a history and the Center which bore his name
Bush and the Republicans were not protecting us on 9-11, and we aren’t a lot safer now. We may be more afraid due to george bush, but are we safer? Being fearful does not necessarily make one safer. Fear can cause people to hide and cower. What do you think? Is killing thousands of innocent civilians okay when you are doing a little government makeover?
If ever there was ever a time in our nation’s history that called for a change, this is it!
We have lost friends and influenced no one. No wonder most of the world thinks we suck. Thanks to what george bush has done to our country during the past three years, we do!
Everyone:
Every blog has at least one. They’re called trolls.
From my reading of this blog, I’ve concluded that Isidor Farash [formally Goldstein] is our very own local troll. For an example of why I so conclude, see the comments section under the 5-Feb-2007 post “Attack Iran?” (You’re looking for Isidor’s repetition of the David Brooks et al. canard that “neocon” is simply a code word for “Jew” — which he posts in the form of a rhetorical question — and my responses.)
A troll’s mind will not be changed. A troll is not interested in rational discussion or enlightenment. A troll’s reason for existence is to oppose and provoke, distracting the rest of us from more important business.
The most important rule about trolls is: Don’t feed them. That means ignore them. Completely. Do not be baited. Do not be provoked. Do not attempt to correct or enlighten, for it will not work. If they are not fed, on the other hand, they will eventually crawl back under their bridge.
auto insurance
This day I find some files of free porn video download.